346 



celerator or accelerator-type device or a very large fusion experi- 

 ment, yes, they would certainly be eligible. 



I think it would be very much more difficult to do the same in 

 areas with very much more application. 



Basic research or, let us say, fusion in the present and probably 

 next experiment stage, are more easy because the immediate indus- 

 trial interest on follow-up and commercialization of results are a 

 bit further away. 



Mr. FuQUA. In a recent meeting with one of the European sci- 

 ence ministers, we discussed these issues, and we also discussed the 

 Space Station, which they are participating in. He stated a Space 

 Station was much more easy to cooperate with because you didn't 

 have a site specific to be located. It was over all of the countries. 

 How do you resolve differences of siting? I am sure JET had those 

 difficulties in its earlier days. 



How do you resolve those differences? 



Dr. WusTER. I don't know how to resolve them. I can mention 

 how they were resolved in those two cases, which I, more or less, 

 participated in. The very first decision of the choice for the CERN 

 Laboratory in the fifties was obviously reasonably easy with Swit- 

 zerland offering a site. Geneva was preferable to other points in 

 Europe where the horrible war in 1945 had left much more traces 

 of destruction. 



When it came to the larger accelerator, the idea was originally to 

 have a second laboratory somewhere, and site offers were made. A 

 very intelligent procedure to find the best site was drafted, a com- 

 mittee of wise men who were coming from the countries who had 

 not offered a site was formed, and they came out with a classifica- 

 tion which was — of course, nobody was so stupid to offer totally im- 

 possible sites — which was not coming to a unique proposal. 



And there was an impasse. At the same time, more governments 

 got worried about the amount of money. So in the end, everybody 

 was concerned and the project was taken off the hook by the dis- 

 covery, which was something that had been more excluded before, 

 that by going underground, you could do it in Geneva and in this 

 way save infrastructure expenditure, which made the project at the 

 same time cheaper by one-third. That was the solution. 



In the case of JET — and there was practically no time loss due to 

 that decision — in the case of JET, the situation was more compli- 

 cated. 



I should say because the community involved — and that is the 

 fusion community which drafted technical conditions — and also the 

 Commission had not made up their mind what they wanted really. 



You see, the first year was practically lost because a commission 

 of the European Community proposed the site of its largest labora- 

 tory, Ispra, as the site for JET. 



Now, much of the important, large member states of the commu- 

 nity wanted to have it everjrwhere except there. So a year was lost 

 by finding a criterion which excluded Ispra. After that, with the 

 criterion you had to do it where fusion research was in place, there 

 were only two sites left, a British and German one. 



And I think it would be very interesting if we had a Freedom of 

 Information Act to find out really how the decision was made. You 

 can have any rumor, from help against terrorists to anything else. 



